On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:56:22 -0700, David E. Ross wrote: > On 5/12/11 5:36 PM, David E. Ross wrote: >> On 5/12/11 4:55 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> WLS schrieb: >>>> Robert Kaiser wrote: >>>>> WLS schrieb: >>>>>> Is WebGL going to be disabled by default or is that something we will >>>>>> need to do in about:config? >>>>> >>>>> Why should it? >>>> >>>> Because of the security threat. >>>> >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/chrome_firefox_security_threat/ >>> >>> None of that is a real security threat that requires immediate action, >>> from all I know and heard (and I'm in Mozilla's security group). This >>> looks very much like some "investigator" trying to gather massive media >>> attention in his favor without a really good backing. Both "threats" are >>> low-impact concerns that we will look into but require no immediate >>> action. There will be a Mozilla blog post on this topic very soon. >>> >>> Media is making every fly into an elephant if they think they can "sell >>> a scandal". >>> >>> Robert Kaiser >>> >> >> US-CERT, an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, >> gives credence to this threat. See >> <http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#web_users_warned_to_turn>. >> > > According to Slashdot, Micro$oft will not implement WebGL because of > security concerns. See > <http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/121236/Microsoft-Brands-WebGL-a-Harmful-Technology>. > > > Of course, the concern might really be the cost of implementing it > correctly.
A devastating counterpoint to Microsoft: <http://muizelaar.blogspot.com/2011/06/webgl-considered-harmful.html> Phil -- Philip Chee <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
